"I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla," Eich wrote. While his post didn't directly mention his $1,000 financial donation to Prop 8, nor his $2,100 in contributions to Prop 8 supporter and CA Congressman Thomas McClintock between 2008 and 2010, Eich did deliver a list of specific and varied plans to "work with LGBT communities and allies," both in reiterating the company's diverse healthcare options and in insisting that he participate in "community-building exercises" down the road. In addition, Eich took the opportunity to announce Project Ascend, a Mozilla initiative meant to expand access to open-source projects to "those who lack privilege."

"I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability," Eich wrote. "No leader or person who has a privileged position should."

505 Reader Comments

Mozilla extends benefits to domestic partners so that all of their employees can get benefits regardless of the state they live in. If Eich does not interfer with this policy and ceases to support for anti-equality campaigns, I will see his apology as genuine.

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

I think the rabbit-hole of the underlying issue has been covered to death in the other thread (and please, before we go off-tangent, I recommend keeping this thread for the discussion of Mozilla), but the good news is that there's at least some acknowledgement. I think Mozilla is smart to at least try to be proactive about this, which means making sure that the opinions of their CEO don't reflect on how they treat others.

Having to hear criticism and face blowback for the choices you make (both as an individual and as a company) is a natural part of speech. Responding to it graciously is difficult. At the end of the day, if he is willing to concede that Mozilla has to provide protections, even if he doesn't agree with them...then there is much less cause for alarm.

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

Or maybe he's actually changed his opinion? It seems churlish to demand someone apologize, and then, when they do, categorically reject it.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

He didn't apologize for his views. And he especially did not apologize for the actions of sending the donations to stop others from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage.

No, he did the extremely stereotypical zealot stance of "I'll continue to judge you internally, but give an outward appearance of acceptance/tolerance)". He'd not even offer the token quasi-apology ("oops! DIdn't mean to hurt any feelings!") if it wasn't for all the negative publicity driving down his stocks.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

I think his inherently bigoted nature makes him an ill fit for Mozilla. CEOs are suppose to be the public persona of a company, and his legacy of fomenting discrimination tarnishes the company image, regardless of what he does now.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

So, it was wrong to aggressively sanction racists in the 1950s and 1960s. Right.

Here's the thing: If he does in fact not bring his outdated opinion with him to work, and the Mozilla Foundation becomes more inclusive or continues to be inclusive, I'll have no problem with him as CEO. That's the way things should be. If his personal attitude does in fact have a negative impact on the Foundation, he should take the blame for that.

On a personal level, I think he's at best a jackass, but if he does what he says he'll do, he's at least carrying his principled opposition in a reasonable way. If everyone could keep their personal biases out of the workplace, we'd all be better for it. Not as much better as people discarding those biases, but better nonetheless.

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

Or maybe he's actually changed his opinion? It seems churlish to demand someone apologize, and then, when they do, categorically reject it.

Not really. He still may be completely opposed to the LGBT lifestyle but more than happy to have any of them at the company if they have the talent that can help generate profit. This is the line between practical business and personal opinions that you would expect from a CEO who is dedicated to a company.

How many CEO's support a politician whose other policies they may utterly dislike but stand to benefit the most as a corporation from their support? For them, business is business.

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

So, it was wrong to aggressively sanction racists in the 1950s and 1960s. Right.

Were they? Speaking back is not a sanction. A rebuttal is not a sanction. Losing democratic votes is not a sanction. Being hounded and ostracized in unrelated social and professional contexts is.

If you don't say what you're apologizing for, it's not an apology. And he's not apologizing for donating $1,000 to a campaign to override a court to take away human rights from gays and lesbians. Does he regret donating the money? Would he donate again?

If this was just the new CEO of the corporate bank, those bland assurances about commitment to existing inclusive policies would be one thing. But if he wants to be a leader of a wider movement, he is going to have to realize that people don't want to take leadership from someone who gives their personal time and money to take away their and their friends and loved ones' fundamental rights.

If you don't say what you're apologizing for, it's not an apology. And he's not apologizing for donating $1,000 to a campaign to override a court to take away human rights from gays and lesbians. Does he regret donating the money? Would he donate again?

Exactly. He actually didn't apologize at all. he was just expressing that he was sad he caused pain. Technically, he didn't even say it was for the pain he caused people on this issue. It could be that he made some checkout teen at Chick-Fil-A uncomfortable with his leering (or any of a billion other things).

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

Or maybe he's actually changed his opinion? It seems churlish to demand someone apologize, and then, when they do, categorically reject it.

if he had changed his opinion that would have been his opening remark.

avoiding the question I would take as meaning nothing has changed his view.

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

But he has shown. He has shown he has been personally committed, in the past, to causing pain. Maybe he considers the amounts of money he donated to be inconsequential... maybe in his own context they were. For many, the total is over what is taken home in a month's worth of hard work.

That's not an inconsequential action, to many. In fact that's a huge commitment and statement of intent, to many. And that's acting on that intent.

He apologizes for causing pain, but isn't willing to actually step back from the action in which he did so? I'm not sure how to take that, personally. It seems like a very two-faced, self serving "apology." It seems awfully close to the sort of thing a "friend" says when she betrays your trust and then apologizes that you were hurt, but not for her actions in hurting you. And then she turns it around to accusing you of being mean and "unforgiving" when you point out that she still did what she did. As if any sort of mouthed apology should immediately wipe the slate.

I'd love to judge him for his actions, but if he's going to ask for that, he's going to need to personally take an action that is counter to his previous actions.

Is it fair to judge a CEO's personal actions when taking into account what he will do at his company? Absolutely. Personal judgement will always inform the types of action and judgement which will be engaged in as a corporate leader. And a corporate leader is in a position where that personal judgement, if it is used to influence corporate decisions in any way, even the less obvious (such as business partnership decisions, etc) can have an immense effect.

So I'll re-iterate what I first said in the other thread: his words speak loudly, his actions speak even louder, and his lack of sincere, direct apology speaks loudest. This is not that apology. This is side stepping. Maybe that criticism seems unfair, but I can't read something like this and feel like it's from someone who actually regrets his actions, rather than regrets the consequential outcome to himself of those actions coming to light. Maybe my own life experiences with people who have offered apologies like this one are biasing me... but I doubt I'm alone in those experiences. A sincere communicator should take that into account.

I want to believe in his sincerity, just like I want to believe that people are fundamentally good. But he is not helping with that, here. At best I'm left feeling skeptical, and I'm not really sure that's good enough for me, in this instance, given the past actions involved. Everyone else is free to form their own opinion.

Boilerplate "apologies" aren't going to cut it anymore. And this... what he's quoted as saying, is not an apology, nor is it anything more than acknowledging, "I've upset a few people". It is disingenuine at best.

Unless the Foundation's decision is reversed or this CEO steps down, I'll not contribute one bit in the way of support for any Mozilla products; not while some double-dealing, two-faced man is the public face of a company. Hell, the spineless bastard can't even publicly stand up and take responsibility for what are contributions tantamount to the belief that LGBT people are not equal. No matter how well their written or open their own policies might be, Mozilla isn't getting my support. No matter how infinitely small an impact it might be, you've now lost me.

People who want to give this guy a pass because he's donated to a right-wing cause - would you be saying the same thing if he had donated $1,000 to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom or the Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance and he was getting criticized by Republicans for doing so? If not, isn't the rule you are applying really a biased rule - that CEOs should be free to personally support bigotry, but not free to personally support freedom?

This is a quote from http://americablog.com/2014/03/mozilla- ... h-ceo.html"Just to get this straight, as it were, by choosing a new CEO who helped rip the hearts out of gay families across California, who stomped on their civil and human rights, Mozilla is actually “promoting freedom.” Well, then why stop with an anti-gay bigot? Just imagine the freedom Mozilla could promote by hiring the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Oh but that’s right, Mozilla would never hire an avowed racist or anti-Semite to head its foundation. And no one would defend such a hire as promoting freedom. But when it comes to bashing gays, suddenly the definition of freedom gets a wee bit murkier."

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

Or maybe he's actually changed his opinion? It seems churlish to demand someone apologize, and then, when they do, categorically reject it.

if he had changed his opinion that would have been his opening remark.

avoiding the question I would take as meaning nothing has changed his view.

How can you possibly know that? You can't. Even if he had changed his views (has he ever said anything on the subject, or just donated a pittance?), he'd be wise to NOT make a big fuss about it, his personal life should be just that.

I really don't understand apologies like these. Are we really to believe this is sincere? He spent some of his own money to remove the rights of others, ffs. That's not something you do on a whim, and I don't believe for a second that he's changed his mind about gay marriage. The only thing he's sorry for is the fact that his bigotry has had negative consequences.

[edit] I suppose if the outcome is positive for mozilla employees, then.. hooray. Dude's still a bigot, though.

Or maybe he's actually changed his opinion? It seems churlish to demand someone apologize, and then, when they do, categorically reject it.

In all fairness, people are entitled to change their opinions, but since there's no evidence in this recent statement supporting any notion that he hasn't reversed direction, my course in exiling Mozilla products remains unchanged.

Southern California, a reasonably educated population, produces some of the most wankery wonks on the planet. Daryl Issa for instance. But the businessmen that prop these weenies up are the problem.

So this clown contributed to McClintock? Readers, I present some McClintock logic:

"Lincoln asked, 'If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one,'" McClintock said in a statement. "And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one."

Free Speech is a right in relation to the government. It is not freedom of consequences. You are free to say what you want. And people are free to interact with you based on what you say. Hateful speech tends not to be rewarded.

It's not *only* a civil right, it is also a liberal principle. A society that does not criminally punish unpopular speech is good, but that's really the minimum. A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

So if I express the opinion that religion is wrong and donate money to causes that are trying to make church attendance illegal, it is apparently a liberal principal that I should not only be legally allowed to do this (which no one here disagrees with) but that I should face no social ostracism for doing so? What if I believe we should bring back slavery, is it wrong to condemn me for it? Your opinion is bad, and you should feel bad.

As long as he follows Firefox's Community Participation Guidelines as precisely as possible, that is fine. That would show that he has tolarance towards homosexuals in the company he now heads.

But still, I wish he could apologize for funding a campaign that would have stripped them of their rights. But even then, I don't know if just that alone would have put the nonprofit at ease. The contradictions between what he believes, what he says, and what he does might arouse suspicion and untrustworthiness upon many down the road - something quite dangerous to have. And remember, he is the new CEO.

This is the most "I'm sorry you were offended" non apology I've ever seen. He nowhere says the he was wrong to make that donation, or that his opinion on gay marriage has changed, but he's sorry if his bigotry offended you.

A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

Couldn't disagree more.

If one of the founding principles a society is built upon states that all (wo)men are equal before the law, then any thought – marginal or not – that aims to circumvent said principle must be sanctioned.

*sigh* I am still tired from trying to keep up from the last go around. To address the article directly because I don't have the patience left for any of the side squabbles, this is a rubbish apology and doesn't make up for the fact that his private actions seek to undo any good his company's policies do. Not to mention, those policies are made for business reasons. Attractive incentives allow Mozilla to find and keep top talent. While this does make a valid case that he can reasonably separate his personal views from his business undertakings, I personally believe that who I do business with matters and would not fault anyone for being upset and refusing to work with him.

In turn, we (the open source movement) have every right to disagree with him, and to refuse to work with him.

This is an unprofessional attitude that shows a great lack of empathy and forethought.

There are thousands of cultures, religions, political factions, philosophies, personality types, etc., that should be tolerated without prejudice in any professional environment. To discriminate based off a personal attribute or opinion in any professional capacity is not only unethical but also immoral in my opinion.

Just because you disagree with him on this particular personal opinion, does not give you the right to attack or reject his professional projects.And as much as I wish Prop 8 had not passed, seeing someone try to get even like this is not appropriate.

You keep in mind that the reason why so much variety exists in today's society is because of this ethical duty. That so much has been accomplished because people across nations, cultures, religions, etc., could come together to work and create progress. That so many minorities have grown respected because the majority worked along side them.

It is professionalism the has made the world and open source projects flourish.

Whaaa. Actions have consequences. He made a public donation to a cause, people are choosing not to volunteer to work with someone who feels that other humans don't deserve equal rights. It's literally no different than any other kind of boycott.